Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Robert Tulip · 09-19-2013, 03:56 AM

I hope Jesus Neither God Nor Man will be reprinted.

Just today, in a conversation on whether Jesus existed, I recommended JNGNM as the best source. I read it cover to cover and found it a superbly referenced and argued explanation of the rise of Christianity.

DCHindley · 09-20-2013, 01:16 PM

When I was testing the link (while it was still not working) I clicked an "archived" Google link that brought me to an early(?) site of yours that I've never seen before (it wasn't one of the websites the links direct you to now) and I remember coming away rather impressed, again, by your literary style.

As you probably remember, I do not impress easily, so all I can say is you made positive contributions to a position you sincerely believe in. It was not just hype to sell books (as you learned, selling books is hardly what folks make it out to be). Nobody ever faults Crossan for writing best selling popular level books on the HJ, because they can convince themselves that he is "credible," but I would prefer that books be "incredible" based on true facts, no matter how interpreted.

Thanks for the input.

Dave

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I can't tell you what's going on at humanists.net, but corn's link works OK now, and so do

www.jesuspuzzle.com
www.jesuspuzzle.org
www.ageofreason.org

all of which rerout to the same entry page where you can go either to Age of Reason or the Jesus Puzzle site.

Regular visitors will know that I have not added any new material to either site in quite a while, at least a couple of years or more. Why? To some extent I've lost interest. My last notable writing job was the series on Vridar rebutting Bart Ehrman's recent defence of an HJ, which I converted to an e-book. At this point, I have no plans to undertake any further research, much less write another book.

Incidentally, I am almost sold out of the initial run of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. I will not be reprinting it, as it is available as an e-book. Part of that is due to my reaction to piracy experiences over the last few years, partly because storing and shipping books in a small basement has become a burden. I have plenty of copies of The Jesus Puzzle still in stock, as well as Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ. Most of the latter (in the hundreds) I am offering to give away to any group willing to take them off my hands and pay the shipping. I think they would be an asset to a University Humanist or Atheist group looking to counter the Campus Crusade for Christ's use of Lee Strobel's book. I'm about to try my local universities first.

Anyway, it's been a long run. 30 years of research, writing and publishing. I'm getting on. I'm not overly tired, just largely burned out. (My last experience on FRDB didn't help any.) Answering Ehrman was my last hurrah, and it was fun. But I'm moving on to a different task, more humanitarian than humanist, with a love interest involved! (How's that for a closing tease?)

P.S. I once quipped that in the history of Jesus Mythicism I would probably end up a footnote. People like Richard Carrier, who is much better placed than I am and much better at self-promotion, will no doubt eclipse me shortly, and the odd established scholar (like Thomas Brodie) is beginning to make a splash in the ranks. Bob Price, of course, continues to do his heavy lifting.

MrMacSon · 09-20-2013, 07:10 PM

.
Hopefully Earl Doherty will be more than a footnote

I think this 2002 article, by Richard Carrier, is a good reflection of Earl's contribution:

(the title of Carrier's article is intriguing given Bart Ehrman's recent controversial book)

Quote:

Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity (2002)

Quote:

a critical review of The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus,
a work by Earl Doherty (Canadian Humanist Publications: Ottawa, Canada; revised edition, 2000)

Summary of Argument and Overall Conclusion

Earl Doherty argues that Christianity began as a mystical-revelatory religion, ... As Doherty argues, "Jesus Christ" (which means "The Anointed Savior") was originally a heavenly being, whose atoning death took place at the hands of demonic beings in a supernatural realm halfway between heaven and earth, a sublunar sphere where he assumed a fleshly, quasi-human form. This and the rest of the "gospel" was revealed to the first Christians in visions & inspirations and through the discovery of hidden messages in the scriptures. After the confusion of the Jewish War and persistent battles over power in the church, rooted in a confused mass of variant sectarian dogmas, a new cult arose with the belief that Jesus actually came to earth and was crucified by Jews with the complicity of the Roman authorities. To defend itself against sects more closely adhering to the original, mystical faith, the new church engaged in polemics & power politics, and eventually composed or adopted writings (chiefly the canonical Gospels) supporting its views.

The "scandalous" consequence of Doherty's theory is that Jesus didn't exist. But it cannot be emphasized enough that Doherty's thesis is ... "Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect, therefore Jesus didn't exist." This is significant. Most scholars who argue that Jesus didn't exist ... have little in the way of reasons beyond a whole complex of arguments from silence. Doherty, in contrast, uses arguments ... to support his thesis ... on positive evidence, especially a slew of very strange facts that his theory accounts for very well but that traditional historicism ignores, or explains poorly. By far most of the criticism or even dismissal of Doherty's work is based on the criticism or dismissal of the Argument from Silence, or his (often supposed) deployment of it. This completely misses the strongest elements of his case: evidence that Christianity did in fact begin as a mystical-revelatory religion.

General Impression of the Work

First of all, let me say this: having read the entire book carefully, and having checked those facts I did not already know, I can honestly say as an expert that Doherty's facts are generally all in line. He does not make anything up or fudge the truth. And as far as I could tell, he doesn't leave out anything significant. Where he puts his own spin on things, he is usually explicit about that, and argues for his particular interpretation rather than asserting it as given.

Secondly, this book must be taken seriously. It is not a quack theory, it is not shoddy work, it is not amateurish. Though elements of Doherty's method of presentation do indicate he is an amateur in the literal sense (I would not believe from reading it that he had a Ph.D. in any relevant field), he is one of the most expert amateurs I have ever encountered. He has read a vast amount of scholarship and he actually understands what he reads. More importantly, he deals with ancient texts directly and competently. The scope of his work would be of dissertation quality, if it were only polished according to existing conventions. In short, I was very impressed. This is serious scholarship, marshaling a great deal of important evidence and observations, and the lack of letters behind the author's name does nothing to remove from the importance of this work as something one must read and interact with before dismissing.

PhilosopherJay · 09-20-2013, 10:01 PM

Hi Stuart and Earl,

I tend to agree with your assessment, Stuart.

Earl Doherty's contribution to the present and future understanding of the Jesus myth cannot be overestimated. He clarified and exposed the contradictions between the epistles and the gospels. He showed clearly and relentlessly that the Jesus of the epistles was not the Jesus of the gospels. He ripped the New Testament in two at this critical fault line and nobody of any sense will ever see it as a simple whole again.

For the Jesus Mythicist field, we can keep track of time by saying B.E. (Before Earl) and A.D. (After Doherty).

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

Mr. Doherty,

Thanks for taking the heat and opening up the field. I am hoping we get past the "hero" stage, of whom I think Darrell Doughty deserves the greatest thanks. I'd like to see system work work done along the very lines Dr. Doughty called for, a verse by verse analysis of the NT and who wrote each, when and why.

When we are in hero mode it's individuals and its exhausting. And of course as individuals you can easily get off course or fall into self promotion. The latter is a sin that causes one to stop learning, and become a political hack defending one's views.

But again thank you. You are a hero.

- SGW

stephan huller · 09-20-2013, 10:48 PM

I haven't been following much of any of this, however this line caught my attention:

Quote:

As Doherty argues, "Jesus Christ" (which means "The Anointed Savior")

I don't understand any of this on any level of construction. Jesus means nothing in Greek but the name it is based on in Hebrew means "God saves" and Christ means nothing in Hebrew but in Greek means anointed one. Savior comes from the af'el participle mesha' (מישע) and the Hebrew hif'il participle (מושיע) both of which mean “one who saves” or “savior."

I don't understand any of this. I would find this error utterly distracting. I've had a similar problem with Richard Carrier's work with the name Jesus. Mythicists can't just 'make up stuff' with this name. The name is not the name of a god (Carrier) and the name does not mean 'Savior' (Doherty) - although I assume Doherty spells the 'savior' the correct way - i.e. saviour.

The root is ישע in both cases and you need a mem in front of the verb to turn it into a noun. This is so basic I don't understand how anyone could miss it.

More to the point in Hebrew it would be impossible to imagine anyone could have thought that a god could have been 'anointed' let alone an 'anointed one.' How do start with Greek but then assume - and misunderstand Hebrew - for the other half of the name? 'Jesus Christ' if it was an early construct would imply a man named Jesus who was anointed. I don't see how mythicists squirm out of this.

MrMacSon · 09-20-2013, 11:18 PM

my understanding is there are two variations of Christ in Greek: christos and chrestus:

one usually means 'annointed'
the other often means 'good', often in reference to a good slave

aa5874 · 09-20-2013, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I haven't been following much of any of this, however this line caught my attention:

Quote:

As Doherty argues, "Jesus Christ" (which means "The Anointed Savior")

I don't understand any of this on any level of construction. Jesus means nothing in Greek but the name it is based on in Hebrew means "God saves" and Christ means nothing in Hebrew but in Greek means anointed one. Savior comes from the af'el participle mesha' (מישע) and the Hebrew hif'il participle (מושיע) both of which mean “one who saves” or “savior."

I don't understand any of this. I would find this error utterly distracting. I've had a similar problem with Richard Carrier's work with the name Jesus. Mythicists can't just 'make up stuff' with this name. The name is not the name of a god (Carrier) and the name does not mean 'Savior' (Doherty) - although I assume Doherty spells the 'savior' the correct way - i.e. saviour.

The root is ישע in both cases and you need a mem in front of the verb to turn it into a noun. This is so basic I don't understand how anyone could miss it.

More to the point in Hebrew it would be impossible to imagine anyone could have thought that a god could have been 'anointed' let alone an 'anointed one.' How do start with Greek but then assume - and misunderstand Hebrew - for the other half of the name? 'Jesus Christ' if it was an early construct would imply a man named Jesus who was anointed. I don't see how mythicists squirm out of this.

Please examine Church History-- Jesus is the Heavenly Logos, the Anointed, and the Lord and Saviour.

Church History 1

Quote:

And we have been told also that certain of the prophets themselves became, by the act of anointing, Christs in type, so that all these have reference to the true Christ, the divinely inspired and heavenly Word, who is the only high priest of all, and the only King of every creature, and the Father's only supreme prophet of prophets.

And a proof of this is that no one of those who were of old symbolically anointed, whether priests, or kings, or prophets, possessed so great a power of inspired virtue as was exhibited by our Saviour and Lord Jesus, the true and only Christ.

stephan huller · 09-20-2013, 11:25 PM

So what? What the fuck does this have to do with anything? I don't see Eusebius making this error here that other Fathers make? But again so what? What does this prove?

aa5874 · 09-20-2013, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

So what? What the fuck does Eusebius know about Hebrew?

Church History is attributed to Eusebius and a supposed witness of the 4th century Jesus cult.

I will let Eusebius answer your f......... question.

Eusebius' Chronicles

Quote:

Thus it is patently clear that the Septuagint was translated from old and accurate Hebrew copies [g149], and is the most appropriate text for us to use in our present Chronicle, especially [g150] since the church of Christ, which has spread throughout the world, supports only this version and since the apostles and disciples of Christ used and transmitted this version.

stephan huller · 09-20-2013, 11:48 PM

I still don't get what any of this proves. Jesus does not mean 'Savior.'

09-20-2013, 11:18 PM	#16
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	my understanding is there are two variations of Christ in Greek: christos and chrestus: one usually means 'annointed' the other often means 'good', often in reference to a good slave

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-19-2013, 03:56 AM	#11
Robert Tulip Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Canberra, Australia Posts: 635	I hope Jesus Neither God Nor Man will be reprinted. Just today, in a conversation on whether Jesus existed, I recommended JNGNM as the best source. I read it cover to cover and found it a superbly referenced and argued explanation of the rise of Christianity.

09-20-2013, 11:25 PM	#18
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	So what? What the fuck does this have to do with anything? I don't see Eusebius making this error here that other Fathers make? But again so what? What does this prove?

09-20-2013, 11:48 PM	#20
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I still don't get what any of this proves. Jesus does not mean 'Savior.'

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.